Thanks for this article. I will wait to read the 2010 edition of the EE Times Salary & Opinion Survey report. Look forward to a part 2 or a follow-up article to this one after the report is published. I am sure many readers will have additional comments.
NO! Let's get rid of the Tax Code by replacing income tax with consumption tax. Then greed could not be satisfied by stupid, unproductive write-offs, including the writing-off of the cost of implementing outsourcing.
GREED is only the motivation, not the answer to the problem. If there were under-utilized manufacturing facilities in the US, then the owners could not satisfy their greed by not utilizing them.
It is the ability to deduct the cost of the facilities from their income in order to reduce their income tax. If the US had consumption tax instead of income tax, then greed could not be satisfied by stupid, unproductive write-offs, including the writing-off of the cost of implementing outsourcing.
Income Tax is one of the biggest problems. The US needs to replace Income Tax with Consumption Tax. That would level the playing field of the price of foreign goods. Products manufactured in the US have costs burdened by layers upon layers of income tax (workers, corporate, cost of benefits). In most cases they compete with products manufactured in countries who subsidize, not tax, these products.
@eewiz -- I agree about our appetite for very cheap prices. There are certainly American consumers who would be willing to pay a little more to 'Buy American', but the majority say no, they want the cheapest price.
It's a reflection of the 'me' attitude -- as long as my job doesn't get outsourced, why should I worry about your job getting outsourced?
And any CEO who doesn't do what needs to be done to grow his business and maximize profit will also find himself out of a job.
What a BOGUS argument. "get back at them by buying their stock and making money off of it"? If they had the money to buy enough stock to make enough money to replace their job income, then they would likely not be working anyway. Then you say it's the corporation's career? Corporations offer good careers as an attraction to working for them.
The important point is that it is not making profit by outsourcing, it is usually selling off core-competencies and IP for quick bottom line cash-flow for the quarter. Once the core-competencies are gone, they usually don't have the experience to interview and hire replacements.
US corporations became great because workers grew in competencies and contributed as PART OF THE CORPORATION. But apparently the workers had more loyalty to the co. than the co. had to them. Loyalty has been in short supply.
Offshoring is here to stay and I do not see a way to reverse it. It started as low labor cost alternative for manufacturing. And when the needed product became more complicated many of the US companies trained their partner to improve manufacturing, design and quality. Currently all the US companies are actually lacking major part of their previous knowledge as it is not in their hands anymore; their outsourced partners has it, and the people that they sent to teach were laid off ( too expensive). The younger generation in those US companies will not get the opportunity to acquire the technical expertise needed to design and manufacture future products. You can learn about quality and design, read boo essays participate in conferences but the actual daily solving of technical issues is what gives the real gain.
I think in a just a few years US technical role in the world will be follower than a leader.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.